Influence of arterial hypotension on fractional flow reserve measurements

Direct wire pacing during measurement of fractional flow reserve: A randomized proof-of-concept noninferiority crossover trial

Background

Adenosine administration for fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement may induce heart pauses.

Aims

To assess the accuracy and tolerability of direct wire pacing (DWP) during measurement of FFR.

Methods

Adults with at least one intermediate coronary artery stenosis (40%-80%) were consecutively enrolled between June 2021 and February 2022 in this randomized, noninferiority, crossover trial (NCT04970082) carried out in France. DWP was applied (DWP) or not (standard method) through the pressure guidewire used for FFR measurement during adenosine-induced maximal hyperaemia. Subjects were randomly assigned to the allocation sequence (DWP first or standard first). A 2-minute washout period was observed between the two FFR measurements performed for each stenosis. The primary endpoint was the reproducibility of FFR measurements between methods.

Results

A total of 150 focal lesions, presented by 94 subjects, were randomized (ratio: 1:1). The FFR values obtained with each method were nearly identical (R = 0.98, p = 0.005). The mean FFR difference of 0.00054 (95% confidence interval: 0.004 to 0.003) showed the noninferiority of FFR measurement with DWP vs. that with the standard method. Higher levels of chest discomfort were reported with DWP than with the standard method (0.61 ± 0.84 vs. 1.05 ± 0.89, p < 0.001), and a correlation was observed between the electrical sensations reported with DWP and chest discomfort (p < 0.001). Pauses (n = 20/148 lesions) were observed with the standard method, but did not correlate with chest discomfort (p = 0.21). No pauses were observed with DWP.

Conclusions

DWP during FFR measurement resulted in accurate and reproducible FFR values, and eliminated the pauses induced by adenosine.

Clinical use of physiological lesion assessment using pressure guidewires: an expert consensus document of the Japanese association of cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics-update 2022

Fractional flow reserve and instantaneous wave-free ratio are widely accepted and recommended in Western and Japanese guidelines for appropriate percutaneous coronary intervention. There are, however, many differences in clinical situations between Japan and Western countries. Therefore, the Task Force on coronary physiology of the Japanese Association of Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics (CVIT) has proposed an expert consensus document to summarize current evidence and suggest the practical use of physiological lesion assessment in Japan.

Fractional Flow Reserve Evaluated as Metric of Coronary Stenosis - A Mathematical Model Study

Introduction: Coronary arterial stenosis may impair myocardial perfusion with myocardial ischemia and associated morbidity and mortality as result. The myocardial fractional flow reserve (FFR) is clinically used as a stenosis-specific index. Aim: This study aims to identify the relation between the FFR and the degree of coronary arterial stenosis using a simple mathematical model of the coronary circulation. Methods: A mathematical model of the coronary circulation, including an arterial stenosis of variable degree, was developed. The relation between the FFR and the degree of stenosis (defined as the fractional cross sectional area narrowing) was investigated, including the influence of the aortic and venous pressures and the capillary resistance. An additional study concerning 22 patients with coronary artery disease permits comparison of clinical data and in silico findings. Results: The FFR shows an S-shaped relationship with the stenosis index. We found a marked influence of venous and aortic pressure and capillary resistance. The FFR is accompanied by a clinically relevant co-metric (FFR C ), defined by the Pythagorean sum of the two pressures in the definition formula for FFR. In the patient group the FFR C is strongly related to the post-stenotic pressure (R = 0.91). The FFR C requires establishment of a validated cut-off point using future trials. Conclusion: The S-shaped dependence of FFR on the severity of the stenosis makes the FFR a measure of the ordinal scale. The marked influences of the aortic and venous pressures and the capillary resistance on the FFR will be interpreted as significant variations in intra- and inter-individual clinical findings. These fluctuations are partly connected to the neglect of considering the FFR C . At otherwise identical conditions the FFR as measured at baseline differs from the value obtained during hyperemic conditions. This expected observation requires further investigation, as the current hyperemia based evaluation fails to take advantage of available baseline data.

Relationship between FFR, CFR and coronary microvascular resistance - Practical implications for FFR-guided percutaneous coronary intervention

Objective

The aim was threefold: 1) expound the independent physiological parameters that drive FFR, 2) elucidate contradictory conclusions between fractional flow reserve (FFR) and coronary flow reserve (CFR), and 3) highlight the need of both FFR and CFR in clinical decision making. Simple explicit theoretical models were supported by coronary data analyzed retrospectively.

Methodology

FFR was expressed as a function of pressure loss coefficient, aortic pressure and hyperemic coronary microvascular resistance. The FFR-CFR relationship was also demonstrated mathematically and was shown to be exclusively dependent upon the coronary microvascular resistances. The equations were validated in a first series of 199 lesions whose pressures and distal velocities were monitored. A second dataset of 75 lesions with pre- and post-PCI measures of FFR and CFR was also analyzed to investigate the clinical impact of our hemodynamic reasoning.

Results

Hyperemic coronary microvascular resistance and pressure loss coefficient had comparable impacts (45% and 49%) on FFR. There was a good concordance (y = 0.96 x − 0.02, r² = 0.97) between measured CFR and CFR predicted by FFR and coronary resistances. In patients with CFR < 2 and CFR/FFR ≥ 2, post-PCI CFR was significantly >2 (p < 0.001), whereas it was not (p = 0.94) in patients with CFR < 2 and CFR/FFR < 2.

Conclusion

The FFR behavior and FFR-CFR relationship are predictable from basic hemodynamics. Conflicting conclusions between FFR and CFR are explained from coronary vascular resistances. As confirmed by our results, FFR and CFR are complementary; they could jointly contribute to better PCI guidance through the CFR-to-FFR ratio in patients with coronary artery disease.

Fractional flow reserve and resting indices for coronary physiologic assessment: Practical guide, tips, and tricks

Physiologic assessment using fractional flow reserve (FFR) to guide percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) has been demonstrated to improve clinical outcomes, compared to angiography-guided PCI. Recently, resting indices such as resting Pd/Pa, "instantaneous wave-free ratio", and contrast medium induced FFR have been evaluated for the assessment of the functional consequences of coronary lesions. Herein, we review and discuss the use of FFR and other indices for the functional assessment of coronary lesions. This review will cover theoretical aspects, as well as practical points and common pitfalls related to coronary physiological assessment. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Influence of increased heart rate and aortic pressure on resting indices of functional coronary stenosis severity

Baseline assessment of functional stenosis severity has been proposed as a practical alternative to hyperemic indices. However, intact autoregulation mechanisms may affect intracoronary hemodynamics. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of changes in aortic pressure (Pa) and heart rate (HR) on baseline coronary hemodynamics and functional stenosis assessment. In 15 patients (55 ± 3% diameter stenosis) Pa, intracoronary pressure (Pd) and flow velocity were obtained at control, and during atrial pacing at 120 bpm, increased Pa (+30 mmHg) with intravenous phenylephrine (PE), and elevated Pa while pacing at sinus heart rate (PE + sHR). We derived rate pressure product (RPP = systolic Pa × HR), baseline microvascular resistance (BMR = Pd/velocity), and stenosis resistance [BSR = (Pa − Pd)/velocity] as well as whole-cycle Pd/Pa. Tachycardia (120 ± 1 bpm) raised RPP by 74% vs. control. Accordingly, BMR decreased by 27% (p < 0.01) and velocity increased by 36% (p < 0.05), while Pd/Pa decreased by 0.05 ± 0.02 (p < 0.05) and BSR remained similar to control. Raising Pa to 121 ± 3 mmHg (PE) with concomitant reflex bradycardia increased BMR by 26% (p < 0.001) at essentially unchanged RPP and velocity. Consequently, BSR and Pd/Pa were only marginally affected. During PE + sHR, velocity increased by 21% (p < 0.01) attributable to a 46% higher RPP (p < 0.001). However, BMR, BSR, and Pd/Pa remained statistically unaffected. Nonetheless, the interventions tended to increase functional stenosis severity, causing Pd/Pa and BSR of borderline lesions to cross the diagnostic threshold. In conclusion, coronary microvascular adaptation to physiological conditions affecting metabolic demand at rest influences intracoronary hemodynamics, which may lead to altered basal stenosis indices used for clinical decision-making.

Performing and Interpreting Fractional Flow Reserve Measurements in Clinical Practice: An Expert Consensus Document

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements can determine the haemodynamic relevance of coronary artery stenoses. Current guidelines recommend their use in lesions in the absence of non-invasive proof of ischaemia. The prognostic impact of FFR has been evaluated in randomised trials, and it has been shown that revascularisation can be safely deferred if FFR is >0.80, while revascularisation of stenoses with FFR values ≤0.80 results in significantly lower event rates compared to medical treatment. Left main stenoses, aorto-ostial lesions, as well as patients with left ventricular hypertrophy and severely-impaired ejection fraction, have been excluded from large, randomised trials. While FFR measurements are relatively straightforward to perform, uncertainty about procedural logistics, as well as data acquisition and interpretation in specific situations, could explain why they are not widely used in clinical practice. We summarise the clinical data in support of FFR measurements, and provide recommendations for performing and interpreting the procedure.

Effect of Varying Hemodynamic and Vascular Conditions on Fractional Flow Reserve: An In Vitro Study

Background

The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of varying hemodynamic conditions on fractional flow reserve (ratio of pressure distal [P_d] and proximal [P_a] to stenosis under hyperemia) in an in vitro setting. Failure to achieve maximal hyperemia and the choice of hyperemic agents may have differential effects on coronary hemodynamics and, consequently, on the determination of fractional flow reserve.

Methods and Results

An in vitro flow system was developed to experimentally model the physiological coronary circulation as flow‐dependent stenosis resistance in series with variable downstream resistance. Five idealized models with 30% to 70% diameter stenosis severity were fabricated using VeroClear rigid material in an Objet260 Connex printer. Mean aortic pressure was maintained at 7 levels (60–140 mm Hg) from hypotension to hypertension using a needle valve that mimicked adjustable microcirculatory resistance. A range of physiological flow rates was applied by a steady flow pump and titrated by a flow sensor. The pressure drop and the pressure ratio (P_d/P_a) were assessed for the 7 levels of aortic pressure and differing flow rates. The in vitro experimental data were coupled with pressure–flow relationships from clinical data for populations with and without myocardial infarction, respectively, to evaluate fractional flow reserve. The curve for pressure ratio and flow rate demonstrated a quadratic relationship with a decreasing slope. The absolute decrease in fractional flow reserve in the group without myocardial infarction (with myocardial infarction) was on the order of 0.03 (0.02), 0.05 (0.02), 0.07 (0.05), 0.17 (0.13) and 0.20 (0.24), respectively, for 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, and 70% diameter stenosis, for an increase in aortic pressure from 60 to 140 mm Hg.

Conclusions

The fractional flow reserve value, an index of physiological stenosis significance, was observed to decrease with increasing aortic pressure for a given stenosis in this idealized in vitro experiment for vascular groups with and without myocardial infarction.